My point was that there is a very rapid absorption process going on.
Yes, during the N.H. growing cycle. Now assuming you could 1) make perpetual spring & summer in the N.H. and 2) magically wipe out the existing biota every 6 months and 3) supply a fresh set of biota in the condition of just coming out of winter and ready for 6 months of spring & summer, then your comment makes sense.
The yearly cycle does in fact subtract a LOT of net CO2 when it's above the "normal" "background" levels [which of course are neither normal nor background because there is no normal CO2 - it ranges a long way and was 2000ppm not long ago. Long before that, it was low after the Carboniferous era stripped carbon from the ecosphere].
So how the heck can it subtract a LOT of net CO2 when it's ABOVE the "normal" "background" level if in fact there is no normal background level?
Despite your muddling above, you somewhat hint at part of the answer. Normal or background is the new steady state which depends on all inputs and all sinks. Currently humans have added a very significant source, and we are trending up to where equilibrium is reestablished, at which point, there will be increased sinks to match the sources. However, there are also increased sources due to feedbacks, so when humans stop, the new equilibrium will in fact be higher. Hint: That is what increased historical CO2 lagging temp was all about, which most of the challenged here can't figure out. So sorry, even if humans stop making CO2, the current blimp up in temps and CO2 equilibrium, are going to be higher than what sans AGW would have been, and they will persist for quite some time. The relaxation time is much longer than the rates you are implying from the annual carbon cycle.
If you really want to argue that CO2 will fall quickly, why don't you see if you can get the equations scientists are using, and make some arguments as to why you think they are wrong. I'll give you one more hint: It has nothing to do with the rates seen in the annual cycle. That has everything to do with the amount of biota coming out of winter conditions and growing threw the growth phase in spring & summer in the N.H. Even if you could prolong the spring & summer, you need to start over with all that biota coming out of winter conditions, which you can't do. So try to get your details correct. It makes a tad little difference. It might help you to read up on tree growth for instance and look at what is called "early wood" and "late wood" (sometimes "summer wood") in tree rings. A good one to look at is Black Locust, which being a ring porous hardwood shows these differences very nicely. In fast growing Black Locust (i.e. plenty of water, nutrients, CO2, etc) the early wood (which is the spring growth spurt) is very wide compared to the late wood bands, so you only get the fast growth & lots of CO2 uptake for part of the growing period, then the tree slows down during the summer, and the late wood band is much smaller. Also, it is the spring spurt that sees most of the leave formation. So CO2 uptake is much reduced later in the growing season. Oh well, why let details get in the way of denial, I forgot about that. My bad!
was 2000ppm not long ago
That has been awhile I think.
On time to ice age, it is fast.
If you look at the historical temp records, the rise out of major glacial cycles is far more rapid than the descent into glacial cycles. Get off your butt and go look.
Being at the top of the 100K temperature cycle you mention is like being at the top of the stock market or housing boom. That is exactly when you should NOT expect that the process will continue
Err, yes that why we call a continued warming trend here AGW as opposed to "natural". You seem to be waking up a bit. |
